Archives
4:55:00 PM EDT
McCain and Nixon
The title of this entry is my way of leading nto an entry on how the Republican Party is no longer giving people any REASON to vote for it, because it does not STAND for anything.
Let us go to the Great Depression and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Has the Democratic Party stood for anything consistently since then? Sure they have. They have CONSISTENTLY stood for an ever expanding Federal Government taking over more and more of our lives. They have stood for more and more UN control of our policies by judges, as Federal Courts have taken over more and more of our policy choices (generally by imposing leftist ideology). At least since the advent of Hugh Hefner and Playboy Magazine, a substantial part of the Democratic Party (that leftist part that has now taken over the Democratic Party) has stood for a rejection of "moral standards", and of the idea of people being responsible for what they do. From abortion to homosexuality to marriage to sex to drugs, the Democratic Party has more and more stood for a "no guilt" idea of personal conduct. This extends to criminal law, where leftists have consistently opposed the death penalty, AND the idea of criminal punishment. For leftists, it is SOCIETY that is at fault for crime, in failing to cure sick people (or sick conditions in society that turn people to crime).
It all comes back to central planning, and imposing what amounts to a socialist/Marxist point of view on the country. The idea is that there are no standards for personal conduct, where people should not face any consequences for seekng their personal pleasures, but our lives should be controlled by central planning imposing a leftist utopia on us all (where the individual is pretty much not allowed to succeed, except in the pursuit of individual pleasure). The end result will be Orwell's "1984" or Huxley's "Brave New World". For leftists, of course, the end result is THEM running everyone's lives the way they should be run--from the cradle to the grave.
The only area in which the Democratic Party has not been pretty consistent since the Great Depression has been in foreign policy. Roosevel was hardly an isolationist, and Truman hardly an advocate of a weak response to the rise of Communism. However, LEFTISTS have been consistent. Leftists were ALWAYS soft on Communism, and willling to blame the United States for the Cold War. LEFTISTS were alwayas willing to unil disarm, and trust TALK to "save" us. Leftists have ALWAYS wanted to turn the world over to the United Nations, and have ALWAYS been guilty over American success (to the extent of regarding America as a major source of problems in the world, once we got rid of Hitler). Leftists HAVE been consistent since the Great Depression. It is only the former, JFK ele of the Democratic Party that has DISAPPEARED. That is the element favoring a STRONG national defense to advance the interests of the United States.
Now an element of this Democratic consistency since World War II has been a pragmatic willingness to accept Democrats who could win elections, even though they did not fit the national mold. You had the Southern Dixiecrats, who were socially conservative, and even somewhat conservative all down the li, but who were Democrats mainly dating from the CIVIL WAR. The South had developed this one party system to keep African-Americans in "their place", and the Democratic Party WAS this one party.
Once the racial "one party" system began to fade in the South, the fundamental conservative (non-bigoted) attitude of the South began to emerge. It began to be clear that the national Democratic Party was way out of step with Southern values, and that the South was not going to be able to keep the national party from getting things like the Civil Rights Laws passed (with Repubican votes). So the South began to shift to solid Republican, without the post-Civil War, "yellow dog" Democrats in control. There have always been "populist" (big government) Democrats like Lyndon Johnson in the South, along with the "state's rights" Democrats. Once there were two real parties in the South, they split along those lines (with African-Americans staying with the Democrats as the party which promised to GIVE them thngs, even though Democratic racists had kept them in subjugation so long). But the schizophrnic nature of the Democratic Party in the South never affected the CONSISTENCY of the left-leaning national Democratic Party. However, the left leaning national party is RELEARNING the old lesson of recruiting candidates who profess Southern values, even though those values conflict with the national Democratic message (the explanation for Democratic victories in 2006, and in thw two recent special elections in Louisiana and Mississippi).
What about the Republicans? They have not been nearly so consistent. There was NOT much of a conservative "message" from the trauma of the Great Depression to Barry Goldwater. The conservatism of Barry Goldwater would flower into the "golden age" of Reagan, and into the Republican "revolution" of 1994. Before then, however, the main thing holding the Republican Party together was ANTI-COMMUNISM. The left was "soft" on Communism. Republicans were not, although the liberal Republicans of a Nelson Rockefeller type have always been inclined to a "softer" foreign policy of the "talk" kind favored by leftists. This opposition to Communism was so successful that JFK actually ran in 1960 as a person TOUGHER on Communism than Richard Nixon. It glu together a Republican Party which seemed unable to answer the "message" of the democratic Party that we needed ever expandinding Federal Government, central plannng "solutions" to all of our problems. With the Democratic "solid South", Republicans could never "recover" from the drubbing FDR gave them. They could only rely on individual CANDIDATES, like Dwight D. Eisenhower, who could overcome the drag of the Republican "label". The Democratic Party never wavered from the FDR idea that the FEderal Government was the ANSWER to everything. Republicans generally favor a less intrusive Federal Government, but really did not make a very strong point of it. They generally just argued that we could not "afford" more government programs. Otherwise, Republicans pretty much retained the image of being "status quo" establishment, country club types who did not want to rock the boat. That was NOT a "message" that was going to get them back to power. It was a "message" that virtually guaranteed that the Republican Party would remain a MINORITY.
Then came the conservative revolution, and Barry Goldwater. Remember, Vietnam was LYNDON JOHNSON'S war. But Barry Goldwater conservatives were not satisfied just to "hold the line" against the Soviet Union. They wanted to aggressively take on the Soviet Union. To paraph Barry Goldwater: "'Extremism in support of liberty is not a vice, and 'moderation' in opposing evil is not a virtue". Barry Goldwater AGGRESSIVELY opposed an ever expanding Federal Government. Ronald Reagan was one of those inspired by Barry Goldwater, as was I (even though Barry Goldwater, in his declining years, would almost become a leftist hero because of his apparent rejection of "social conservatism" and the "religious right"). With Barry Goldwater, the Republican Party suddenly had a MESSAGE, with intellectual substance, instead of just an idea that the status quo is best.
Barry Goldwater was ann, as Lyndon Johnson (with help fro liberal Republicans of the type who like John McCain) successfully labeled him an "extremist" who would endanger us all. Ironically, of course, Johnson would promptly ESCALATE the Vietanm War beyond all bounds, in the most INCOMPETENT military action the U.S. has ever undertaken (MUCH more incompetent than Iraq). The Johnson landslide was also made possible by the sympathy/goodwill factor resulting fromt he assassination of JFK. However, the seeds of a coherent Republican MESSAGE had been planted.
The Republican Party, however, would go back to the past in its actual nominees. Richard Nixon was NOT a conservative of the Barry Goldwater type. He had a conservative reputation, because of his ENEMIES, and his anti-Communist background. However, in actual fact, he was of the old style, ESTABLISHMENT Republican school that Republicans could MANAGE government, and even foreign policy, better than Democrats, in the interest of the status quo--but without much of an ideological element. Thus, Nixon opened the door to China and did little against the Soviet Union. Henry Kissinger was Nixon's partner in a PRAGMATIC view of foreign polciy (not the good against evil view of Ronald Reagan). Nixon and Kissinger gradually wound down the Vietnam War, in a thoroughly pragmatic way. Nixon was the ONLY U.S. President to impose price controls outside of wartime. He signed the legislaton CREATING the EPA. The Federal Government EXPANDED about as fast under Nixon as it would have under a Democrat. Nixon appointed ESTABLISHMENT judges. His appointees to the Supreme Court, along with the appointee of Gerald Ford, were the ones who provide the votes for Roe v. Wade.
Then came Gerald Ford--the accidental President who was a perfect establishment Republican. He managed to beat Reagan for the Presidential nomination in 1976, and conservatives should be ever thankful that he LOST to the hopeless Jimmy Carter.
After Carter, Reagan brought REAL conservatism, of the modern kind inspired by Barry Goldwater, into power. No longer was the talk in foreign policy about "balance of power". It was about WINNING, and abut RIGHT and WRONG. The Soviet Union was correctly labeled the Evil Empire. The ridiculous tax rates, and system, was simplified to three rates: 0%, 15%, and 28%--from a top rate of 70%. Reagan actually proposed a SMALLER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (although he never really succeeded in doing more than stall the growth). Reagan was not about the "status quo". He was about a conservative "message". Abortion was a matter of RIGHT and WRONG. He actually WON the Cold War (something I never believed would happen in my lifetime--Eastern Europe free and a united Germany, with no Berline Wall).
The Republican Party blew it. George Bush 41 returned to the old "status quo", establishment conservatism. "Read my lips" became one of those "deals" with Democrats where Democrats got what they wanted on HIGHER taxes, while spending went ever higher. David Souter was appointed to the Supreme Court.
Luckily, for conservatives, Bill Clinton BEAT George Bush 41. This caused a momentary Renaissance for conservat, as the Gingrich revolution resulted in the conservative "Contract with America". For the eight Clinton years, with a Republican House after 1994, spending was kept unde some control, and there were NO new big government programs. In fact, the only big domestic "accomplishments" were the REPUBLICAN/CONSERVATIVE ideas of "welfare reform" and NAFTA.
Then came the betrayal again. "Term limits" were forgotten early on. Soon the idea of limiting government spending was forgotten. Illegal immigration exploded, as George Bush 43 pursued the idea of luring Hispanics to the Republican Party. "Compassionate conservative" George Bush 43 was elected--a Big Government guy (accepting the idea that it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to solve all of our pro, just so long as it is managed in a "status quo" sort of manner). Government spending went totally out of control No vetoes. Earmarks all over the place. We got NEW Federal programs like the really stupid "Medicare Drug Benefit Program", and "No Child Left Behind". Except as to the War on Terror and Iraq, there was little argument against Democrat ideas. For 2004, the "Christian Right" was recruited, against elitist John Kerry, but nothing was DELI (partly because of Republicans like John McCain). Then Republican politicians started to be exposed as subject to human weakness. Worse, however, Republicans did not counter with a STRONG defense of principles. They just fell back on defending the status quo.
Result: The Republican Party no longr has a message (except the idea of lower taxes, and the idea of strength in the War on Terror and in Iraq--not enough on their own in the absence of an obvious CRISIS, although it MAY be enough to get McCain elected as the "not Obama" candidate).
This is where the title of this entry comes in. Nixon was elected in 1968, and then re-elected in a LANDSLIDE in 1972. But Republicans did NOT win either the House or the Senate. WHY? It was because there was no real Republican message. The Democrats simply IMPLODED, as the extreme left raised its ugly head (successfully nominating McGovern in 1972). Even one of the great landslides in American history did not advance conservatism, because Nixon was not about conservatism. Neither is John McCain.
WHAT is the Republican message now?
1. Smaller Federl Government? Don't make me laugh.
2. Stop Illegal immigration by enforcing the law? Ditto.
3. Social issues (where Republicans SHOULD have been in a position to make hay after this Califonia decision on homosexual marriage). Establishment Republicans like McCain make it clear that they don't care about what O'Reilly calls the "culture war", except for occasional lip service so long as they don't have to DO anything that will substantially affect the status quo.
4. War on Terror. Yes, but it is not enough and Republicans have not been very AGGRESSIVE about taking on Democrats, and the leftist extremists out there, in the way that Ronald Reagan was willing to talk about RIGHT and WRONG.
5. Supreme Court justices? Maybe, but McCain was part of the "gang of 14" wanting to appont the kind of ESTABLISHMENT justices appointed by Nixon and Ford.
6. Health care? Nope. Republicans have accepted the idea that the Federal Government is responsible for our health care, and is only arguing over methods.
7. Leftist environmental extremism, such a "global warmng"? You must be kidding.
8. Energy indendence? While OPPSOIG drilling in Anwar? As usual, a mixed message that ends up no message at all, as Republicans REFUSE to take on environmental extremists.
Etc. There is NO "Republican message" now. While Democrats have the same old message they have pretty much had since the Great Depression. Republicans are merely again becoming defenders of the "status quo", which means PERMANMENT minority status unless another Ronald Reagan arises in response to another Jimmy Carter.
Written by skip3366 Blog about this entry |
Add to del.icio.us | 
digg this
-
Last time I checked, Sadaam was dead ... so what are we still doing there if not imposing our will? We are alleviating sectarian violence and chaos by imposing ‘democracy’ on people who show no inclination toward it. If that’s not massive social engineering, then I’m Ken Kesey.
And since we’re in the business of overturning ‘dangerous’ dictators, when can we expect the invasion of Burma and North Korea? -
I am afraid I don't accept the idea that we are "imposing" our will on the PEOPLE of Iraq. We went into Iraq to eliminate a vicious dictator who was willing to murder his opponents, and commit genocide, in the mold of a minor league Adolf Hitler. Further, Saddam Hussein was a danger to his neighbors--also in the mold of a minior league Adolf Hitler. He was also a continuing THREAT to us, although not a imminent danger (Bill Clinton has said so in even stronger terms than President Bush). As to danger to neighbors, you only have to remember Kuwait.
Nope. I think it is a legitimate argument that it was a MISTAKE to go into Iraq. To argue that it was "imposing our will on others" is a concept I reject. Saddam Hussein was a monster, and not an elected leader. I do welcome the person commenting back, as she had not commented in some time. -
Speaking of social engineering projects on a massive scale whereby we impose our will on others ... you might mention our ‘adventure’ in Iraq
5/16/08 12:32 AM
WHY did we stay in Iraq after the initial VICTORY over Saddam? We did that for the same reason we stayed in Germany and Japan after World War II: to avoid CHAOS, and having to do the same thing all over again. I am willing to accept the argument that it was a MISTAKE to invade Iraq in the first place (even though I don't quite buy it) I am convinced, along with everybody else, that we made a number of MISTAKES in the way we handled the aftermath of our victory. However, I do NOT accept the idea that it would have been responsible to get rid of Saddam and then just LEAVE, when we KNEW that would result in a boodbath and likely terrorist victory.